Armed Forces: 2nd Battalion of The Royal Regiment of Fusiliers

Lord Vinson: To ask Her Majesty's Government against which criteria they assessed the 2nd Battalion of The Royal Regiment of Fusiliers when they took the decision to disband it; which criteria, if any, it failed to meet; and, whether they will reconsider that decision.

Lord Astor of Hever: The Ministry of Defence will continue to implement the changes set out by the Defence Secretary (Philip Hammond) in his Statement in the other place on 5 July 2012, (Official Report, col. 1085) in which he stated:
	"we are reducing the size of the regular Armed Forces, but we are increasing the reserves, including an integration element of the total landforce of 120,000 with an extra £1.8 billion of investment in reserves, training and equipment".
	The criteria used to assess which battalions would be withdrawn from the Army's order of battle and the reason for the selection of the 2nd Battalion, The Royal Regiment of Fusiliers, were detailed during the Backbench Business Committee Debate by my right honourable friend, the Member for South Leicestershire, Minister for the Armed Forces (Andrew Robathan) in the other place on 18 October 2012 (Official Report, col. 557-560).

Armed Forces: Medals

Lord Alton of Liverpool: To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, following their decision not to allow Arctic convoy survivors to accept the Medal of Ushakov awarded to them by the Government of Russia, they have contacted the veterans of the Arctic convoy to explain why they took that decision; what were those reasons; and how many veterans are involved.

Baroness Warsi: The decision not to give permission for the Ushakov Medal to be accepted was made in accordance with the current British rules on the acceptance of foreign awards which require that the following is taken into consideration:
	whether there has been relevant service to the foreign state;whether some or all of the service took place within the past five years; and that the deeds/service which are being honoured should not already have been honoured by the UK.
	The decision to refuse permission was made only after very careful consideration of all the information provided by the Russian embassy. However, it was found that this information did not show that the intended recipients had given specific service to Russia within the past five years as required by those rules. This was particularly important as the rules also say that permission will not be given for British citizens to accept a foreign award if they have received, or are expected to receive, a British award for the same services. In the case of the Arctic convoys, provision was made for those serving on the Convoys to receive medallic recognition through their specific inclusion within the criteria for the Atlantic Star medal. Whilst there were clearly different circumstances that applied to those serving on the Arctic Convoys as opposed to those facing other dangers on operations in the Atlantic, the decision was nevertheless taken that this medal should be applicable to all serving in those areas. This was a conscious decision taken by those in authority at the time and with the full facts available to them. The acceptance of another medal from the Russian Government to recognise the same service would be in contravention of the long-standing no double-medalling convention.
	The noble Lord may wish to note that Sir John Holmes, in his Military Medals Review published on 17 July 2012, made a number of recommendations, including that there should be a fresh look at the policy on the acceptance of medals from another country. The Government have invited Sir John to undertake further work to implement his recommendations. This has begun, with an initial focus on looking at the case for medals for a number of past campaigns, including the Arctic Convoys.
	The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, my honourable friend the Member for Boston and Skegness (Mr Simmonds) is, however, seeking explanations as to whether this rule is necessary and desirable in all circumstances.

Bahrain

Lord Patten: To ask Her Majesty's Government, further to the Written Answer by Baroness Warsi on 11 October (WA 425), what was the outcome of the recent visit of the Bahraini Minister for Human Rights to the United Kingdom.

Baroness Warsi: The visit of the Bahraini Minister of State for Human Rights has been postponed until early November.

Civil Service: Secondments

Lord Adonis: To ask Her Majesty's Government how many senior civil servants at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office are on secondment to companies or organisations in the United Kingdom; how many were seconded to such companies or organisations in 2011; and to which companies and organisations they are or were seconded.

Baroness Warsi: There is currently one member of staff from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) senior management structure (SMS) on formal outward secondment. Four others from the FCO SMS are currently working for companies in the United Kingdom while they are on special unpaid leave (SUPL) from the FCO. Since 2009, a further four SMS officers had undertaken formal secondments and two SMS officers had worked for outside organisations in the UK while on SUPL from the FCO. The FCO encourages staff, including its senior members, to develop new skills and to broaden their experience through secondments to the private sector and other external organisations as well as within Government.
	The FCO also encourages new Heads of Mission to engage with business ahead of their departure to post as part of the effort to implement the FCO's charter for business. The scheme permits short-term attachments (no longer than one week) and is designed to help senior FCO staff strengthen their general awareness and understanding of business issues relevant to their country of posting. There have been 16 such short-term placements since the scheme started in mid-2011.

Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: To ask Her Majesty's Government under what circumstances information held on individuals by the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency can be released to private companies.

Earl Attlee: Information held by the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency may only be disclosed to private companies under conditions prescribed in law and where the requirements of the Data Protection Act can be met.
	Disclosure of vehicle keeper details is provided to any person who can demonstrate reasonable cause for requesting it. Such circumstances include safety recalls by manufacturers, minor traffic incidents not warranting a full police investigation and insurance queries concerning accidents and the investigation of fraud. Requests from private car parking management companies to pursue alleged parking contraventions on private land are also considered to meet the reasonable cause criteria.
	Information about drivers is released to private companies only with the explicit consent of the data subject for purposes relating to driving entitlement or to support road safety.

Firearms: Licensing

The Earl of Shrewsbury: To ask Her Majesty's Government whether the Home Office Position Paper on calculating firearms licensing fees presented to the Firearms Consultative Committee in June 1999 remains the position of the Home Office; and, if not, in what ways the Home Office's position has changed.

Lord Taylor of Holbeach: In calculating a new fee, the Government will continue to have regard to whether there is a need to achieve full cost recovery in respect of those services for which a charge may be properly made. The Government are currently considering information on current costings supplied by the Association of Chief Police Officers and we will continue to discuss this with interested parties.

G8

The Lord Bishop of Derby: To ask Her Majesty's Government what are their priorities for the United Kingdom presidency of the G8 in 2013.

Baroness Warsi: I refer the right reverend Bishop to the Statement made by the Prime Minister, my right honourable friend the Member for Witney (Mr Cameron) on 23 May (Official Report, Commons; cols. 1136-38).
	The Prime Minister intends to announce his priorities for the UK presidency of the G8 in 2013 this autumn.

Government Departments: Correspondence

Lord Norton of Louth: To ask Her Majesty's Government how many (1) letters, and (2) emails, were received by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in each of the past five years for which information is available; and, of those, how many were sent by (a) members of the House of Commons, (b) members of the House of Lords, and (c) members of the public.

Baroness Warsi: The Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) does not record centrally the number of letters and e-mails received. To ask every FCO department and overseas post how many letters and e-mails had been received would incur disproportionate cost.
	The FCO reports annually to Cabinet Office on the performance of the department in replying to Members' and Peers' correspondence. The following table shows returns for the last five years. Separate figures for MPs' and Peers' correspondence are not recorded.
	
		
			 Correspondence from MPs/Peers to Ministers and Agency Chief Executives: 
			 Year Number of Letters Received 
			 2007 9,792 
			 2008 10,334 
			 2009 10,462 
			 2010 9,845 
			 2011 10,402 
		
	
	The Cabinet Office publishes an annual report to Parliament on the performance of departments in replying to Members' and Peers' correspondence. The report for 2011 was published on 15 March 2012 (Official Report, col. WS 42).

Government Departments: Special Advisers

Lord Warner: To ask Her Majesty's Government whether the Minister for Faith and Communities has a publicly-funded Special Adviser working on faith-based speeches; and whether civil servants employed by the Department for Communities and Local Government can be required to assist her with the preparation of such pronouncements.

Baroness Warsi: I have one special adviser supporting me on my Faith and Communities portfolio. Details of all special advisers in post are published by the Cabinet Office on a quarterly basis and are available at: https://update.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/sites/default/files/ resources/Special-Advisers-in-Post-19-October.pdf.
	My special adviser's work, and that of civil servants working with her, is undertaken in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Conduct for Special Advisers and the Civil Service Code.

Israel

Lord Dykes: To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have held any discussions with the Government of Israel about Iran; and about any possession by Israel of nuclear weapons.

Baroness Warsi: We have regular, senior discussions with the Government of Israel on Iran most recently in the course of the UK and Israel's Strategic Dialogue in early November. Our message to Israeli leaders has been consistent: we favour a negotiated solution. We have made it clear to Israel that a real chance should be given to the approach we have adopted: serious economic sanctions, diplomatic pressure and negotiations with Iran. While we have made clear that all options remain on the table, we are not advocating military action in the current circumstances.
	Israel has not declared a nuclear weapons programme. We encourage Israel to sign up to the Non-Proliferation Treaty and call on it to agree a comprehensive safeguards agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency.

Israel and Palestine

Baroness Tonge: To ask Her Majesty's Government what discussions they have had with the Government of Israel and the Palestinian Authority about a timeframe for resuming negotiations.

Baroness Warsi: As the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my right honourable friend the Member for Richmond (Yorks) (Mr Hague), made clear on 30 October (Official Report, Commons; col. 148), we believe that the priority is for the new US Administration to lead a major push to restart negotiations in 2013 and arrive at a two state solution.
	We continue to make our view on the urgent need for credible negotiations clear to both the Government of Israel and the Palestinian Authority.

Israel and Palestine

Baroness Tonge: To ask Her Majesty's Government what representations they have made to the Government of Israel regarding the clearance of Palestinian homes and structures in Area C and in the village of Izbat at Tabib.

Baroness Warsi: Our officials in Israel have made frequent representations to the Israel authorities about demolitions in Area C. Our ambassador to Tel Aviv raised this issue with Israeli Co-ordinator of Government Activities in the Occupied Palestinian Territories on 9 October. We will continue to raise this issue.

Israel and Palestine: West Bank

Baroness Tonge: To ask Her Majesty's Government what representations they have made to the Government of Israel about the destruction of water cisterns by the Israeli authorities in the West Bank.

Baroness Warsi: Our officials in Israel have not raised this specific issue with the Israeli authorities, but we have raised our concerns over other issues with the Israeli Co-ordinator of Government Activities in the Occupied Palestinian Territories and with the Israeli Defence Force on a number of occasions.
	We view any attempts to change the facts on the ground as a serious provocation likely to raise tensions and cause suffering to ordinary Palestinians, as well as being harmful to the peace process and in contravention of international law. We continue to monitor the situation closely.

Justice: Deferred Prosecution Agreements

Lord Avebury: To ask Her Majesty's Government what deferred prosecution agreements are in the process of being entered into by the Serious Fraud Office and how many such agreements have been entered into so far.

Lord McNally: No deferred prosecution agreements have been entered into, and none are in the process of being entered into. Proposals to bring deferred prosecution agreements into effect in England and Wales are currently before Parliament within the Crime and Courts Bill. As a result, the Serious Fraud Office is not yet able to make use of the provisions.

Licensing Hours

Lord Jopling: To ask Her Majesty's Government, further to the Written Answer by Lord Taylor of Holbeach on 5 November (WA 180), why the response did not state whether a review of late-night licensing procedures to give local residents greater influence over licensing decisions would be considered, as the original question had asked.

Lord Taylor of Holbeach: The Government have already reviewed licensing and, in late 2010, carried out a public consultation on rebalancing the Licensing Act 2003 in favour of local communities. As the previous Answer explained, the Government have since legislated and, in 2012, they brought into force a range of measures to give local residents greater influence over local licensing decisions. The Government will shortly launch a public consultation on the wider proposals set out in their Alcohol Strategy. There are no plans for a further review of late-night licensing procedures.

Local Government: Openness and Transparency

Lord Campbell-Savours: To ask Her Majesty's Government what representations they have received on the resignation of parish councillors due to the introduction of the Relevant Authorities (Disclosable Pecuniary Interests) Regulations 2012.

Baroness Hanham: Following representations from local government on the new standards arrangements in local government, my department published a practical guide in August on the new arrangements for councillors declaring personal interests following the abolition of the Standards Board regime.
	The practical guide recommends a common-sense balance between electoral accountability and personal privacy. It corrects some misconceptions about the new approach and provides steer on how to avoid a bureaucratic, gold-plated approach by monitoring officers trying to keep the worse elements of the old standards regime.
	A copy of Openness and Transparency on Personal Interests: A Guide for Councillorsis in the Library and is published at: www.communities.gov.uk/publications/localgovernment/personalinterestsguide.

Morocco and Pakistan

Lord Hylton: To ask Her Majesty's Government how many British citizens are in custody in (1) Morocco, and (2) Pakistan; what is their assessment of the numbers of those sentenced by a duly constituted court; what representations they have made in the last year for which details are available on their behalf; and with what results.

Baroness Warsi: We are aware of 15 British nationals in custody in Morocco, and of these 13 have been sentenced. We are also aware of 18 British nationals in custody in Pakistan, three of whom have been sentenced.
	The Foreign and Commonwealth Office will continue to provide consular assistance to these individuals, including regular visits. Our main role when a British national is detained overseas is one of welfare and we cannot interfere in the legal system of another country. However, if we receive any allegations of mistreatment we raise these with the local authorities. We have made, and will continue to make, representations regarding individual cases when and where we judge them to be appropriate and effective.
	We are committed to using all appropriate influence to prevent the mistreatment of British nationals in detention. We also campaign against the use of the death penalty.

Nigeria

Lord Alton of Liverpool: To ask Her Majesty's Government what progress they have made in establishing whether or not there are links between Boko Haram and organisations and individuals in the United Kingdom.

Baroness Warsi: It is long-standing British Government policy not to comment on intelligence matters.

Planning

Lord Rooker: To ask Her Majesty's Government what checks are in place to ensure that planning authorities act objectively in respect of planning applications from local authorities.

Baroness Hanham: The procedures dealing with development by local authorities are contained in the Town and Country Planning General Regulations 1992. Local authorities may grant themselves planning permission for their own development, but this ability is subject to several important safeguards. For example, the proposals must be advertised in the same way as any similar application from any other applicant and they cannot be decided by a committee or officer responsible for the management of any land or buildings to which the application relates.
	Local authority development proposals, like those of other persons applying for planning permission, must be decided in accordance with the development plan and any planning considerations must relate to the use and development of land.
	It is open to any third party who is aggrieved by a local authority's decision to grant planning permission to apply for judicial review if they believe the decision was wrong in law, or they can ask the Local Government Ombudsman to investigate if they consider that injustice has been caused to them as a result of maladministration.

Plymouth Brethren

Lord Patten: To ask Her Majesty's Government what is their assessment of the religious freedoms of the Plymouth Brethren in the United Kingdom.

Baroness Warsi: Followers of any religion or sect are able to worship freely in the United Kingdom, subject only to the existing law of the land. To be registered as a charity a religious group has to show that it is for the public benefit.

Roads: M4

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: To ask Her Majesty's Government, further to the answer by Earl Attlee on 29 October (WA 107) regarding speed limits on the M4, whether they intend to reintroduce the bus lane between junction 3 and the Chiswick flyover; and what changes have been made to the geometry of the road to warrant reducing the speed limit to 60 miles per hour between junctions 4 and 3.

Earl Attlee: Future plans relating to the bus lane between junctions 3 and 2 of the M4 remain subject to the outcome of a statutory consultation about the permanent removal of the bus lane. The Highways Agency is in the process of reviewing two objections received prior to a decision being considered by the Secretary of State in 2013.
	There have been no changes made to the geometry of the road between junctions 4 and 3. The speed limit reflects the existing road layout.

Security: Private Companies

Lord Touhig: To ask Her Majesty's Government, further to the answer by Baroness Warsi on 30 October (Official Report, col. 496), whether the National Audit Office has been consulted on the proposed independent auditing body or bodies to regulate private military and security companies.

Baroness Warsi: The National Audit Office (NAO) has not been consulted on this matter as the British Government will not be paying for companies to be certified, or auditing bodies to be accredited to provide this regulatory function. We therefore do not consider the NAO to be a relevant body in this context. The UK Accreditation Service (UKAS) is the competent body with whom we are consulting.

Security: Private Companies

Lord Touhig: To ask Her Majesty's Government, further to the answer by Baroness Warsi on 30 October (Official Report, col. 496), what terms of reference will be given to the proposed independent auditing body or bodies to regulate private military and security companies.

Baroness Warsi: We are in discussions with the relevant stakeholders, including the UK Accreditation Service (UKAS) about the terms of reference for independent bodies to audit private security companies. These are likely to draw heavily on the auditing standard published earlier this year by US security standards body ASIS specifically to audit private security companies working in complex environments overseas (ASIS standard PSC 2-2012).

Transport: Roadworthiness Regulations

Lord Pearson of Rannoch: To ask Her Majesty's Government, further to the Written Statement by Earl Attlee on 5 November (WS 74), what is the current state of negotiations on the proposed European Union directive on roadworthiness testing for motor vehicles and their trailers.

Earl Attlee: Only the draft regulation on periodic technical inspection has been discussed so far. On 1 November the Cypriot presidency produced a revised text proposing to change the regulation to a directive. This revision has addressed some of the issues raised by member states and will be considered at further working group meetings. The Government will continue to challenge those provisions that imply unmerited costs.